The Four Disagreements at The Heart of America Right Now

And maybe the entire world.

America’s splitting up. If we were a band, we’d be going our separate ways and talking about our artistic differences on MTV.

Our disagreements transcend politics.

We’re talking about values and principles, worldviews, and perceptions of reality at this point. Our politics are poisoned. We’ve lost friends. Families aren’t speaking to each other. More and more, we seem to be living different lives in different realms that never cross. Most of us have given up trying to see anything from another point of view.

I’ll include myself here.

I’ve lost trust in people who used to be close friends. I don’t even know when I’ll feel safe to enter a classroom again, something I used to see as a central component of my identity, and there’s millions of critics out there who think I’m being a big cry baby.

We disagree on almost everything now, but beneath all of our disagreements there seem to be four major ones. These are the biggest, the ones that influence how we argue about everything else.

Maybe it’s time to talk about them.

Here they are:

The optimists vs. the realists

The optimists of America believe we’re living in the best of times. The world is ripe with abundance. All you have to do is stay positive and work hard, think outside the box, and you’ll get everything you want.

This group tells us to love adversity.

The obstacle is the way.

Optimists value attitude above everything else. They believe if you aren’t speaking or expressing yourself in an upbeat constructive tone, then you’re contributing to the problems instead of solving them. They’ll go to great lengths to avoid complaining about anything or criticizing anyone. They find it unproductive. They even go as far to say that expressing negative ideas or attitudes can hurt your mental health.

Realists don’t see the world this way.

They consider themselves more in tune with reality. They look at data showing the world in decline, and in need of drastic intervention. Realists don’t think we can sufficiently deal with these problems until we recognize their full scope and depth.

Realists value plain speaking. They believe it’s necessary, even urgent, to express criticism and dissent. They believe in voicing those negative ideas and criticisms, even if it makes them look cynical.

Optimists and realists clash a lot. The clashes are getting more intense, because realists are growing more convinced that we’re out of time to deal with our most serious problems. Realists also continually feel that optimists don’t listen to them, and aren’t doing enough. They believe optimists don’t take these problems seriously, and that their easygoing attitude often lets too many people off the hook.

Optimists respond to these criticisms by calling realists negative and pessimistic, or even fatalistic. They see realists as promoting “doom and gloom,” and merely shouting for attention.

Each one says the other’s outlook is bad for your mental health. Each one says the other’s philosophy leads to passivity.

It’s probably a little of both.

The individualists vs. the collectivists

Individualists believe everyone’s responsible for their own happiness and well-being, because the world provides everyone with the same fundamental opportunities for success. Even if you’re born in a poor region of the world, you can make a pilgrimage to a land of opportunity. The real question is what you’re willing to give up to get there.

They believe that while the world isn’t fair, you can usually make up for any disadvantages by working extra hard, or making sacrifices ordinary people aren’t willing to make.

In the individualist view, truly exceptional people always rise to the top. The more obstacles, the sweeter the reward at the end. Individualists resent being told their triumphs might owe to privilege, because it detracts from the work they put in. They also dislike the notion that they should share their rewards with anyone, because it discourages people from attaining their own success. An individualist’s notion of giving back might include giving advice or mentoring people, maybe even charity.

Individualists scoff at the idea of taxes, or any other forced obligation. They want to give back to communities on their own terms, at their own discretion, just like they succeeded on their own terms.

This group believes we choose to be offended or victimized by other people’s actions and behaviors. There’s no point in calling them out or complaining, or trying to cancel bad actors, even if they happen to be wrong. Focusing too much on politics or social movements simply distracts us from achieving our own goals and experiencing our own joy. If everyone simply worked on themselves, they’d be happier.

Collectivists see the world differently.

The collectivist mindset downplays individual effort. Collectivists pay much more attention to all the resources they believe individualists take for granted in their rise to the top.

These resources include people.

Collectivists believe individuals often receive too much of the recognition and reward for achievements that are obtained through collaboration and group efforts. It’s never just the one person who works hard. It’s many people. For example, successful entrepreneurs rely on public resources and infrastructure that’s paid for by millions of people. It’s only fair they contribute back not just on their own terms, but in a way that actually benefits the public and helps other people succeed. These entrepreneurs owe the people who helped them succeed a bigger part of the reward.

Again, clashes between individualists and collectivists are getting more intense as resources become more scarce, and wealth inequality reaches staggering levels. Individualists grow more resentful at having to share their rewards with anyone they don’t see as contributing. Collectivists are quicker to see individualists as entitled and greedy. They’re finding it harder than ever to help people less fortunate than them, and they feel a growing urgency to call out those with wealth.

Collectivists are getting angry as economic gaps widen around the world. Individualists are doubling down on their narrative of self-achievement and personal effort. Collectivists are trying to hold individualists accountable, and individualists feel scapegoated.

It’s a bitter feud.

The idealists vs. the pragmatists

Idealists see the world in very clear terms, like black and white, and good and evil. You’re either with them, or you’re against them.

They might gesture toward compromise or unity, but they always mean the other side needs to compromise with them and join their side. They’re probably just not able to see how they can compromise on their own views. For them, it’s a non starter.

You see idealism not just in evangelical types, but on the far left too. They believe the most important thing is to remain true to their own values and principles, whether it’s religion or an economic philosophy like capitalism or socialism. Their job is to convince everyone else why they’re right. As much as they expect others to compromise, they feel making concessions somehow contaminates or diminishes them.

In the idealist view, it’s better to lose or give up everything than make a compromise they regret. They think if someone isn’t willing to suffer or even die for their beliefs, then they actually don’t believe strongly enough. Lack of resolve leads to certain defeat.

This is the “never back down” mindset.

Idealists believe you have to be forceful in your convictions. You have to stick to your guns. Don’t cave in.

Pragmatists are much more willing to alter their beliefs based on facts and reasoning, even if it doesn’t seem that way to idealists. They care more about making progress than winning. They’re also more willing to see how the end justifies the means.

They value action more than principle.

A pragmatist would rather let go or suspend some of their own values and beliefs than suffer or die for a cause. They want compromises and negotiations that benefit them in some way, even if they don’t get everything they need. To an idealist, it looks weak.

Again, pragmatists and idealists come into conflict when both sides think the other is being stubborn and refusing to give in. The pandemic has been a perfect example, where large groups just can’t agree on where to draw the line between someone’s personal freedom and their own responsibility to protect others. It’s gotten violent.

Pragmatists see their own actions, like masking and social distancing, as a willingness to compromise and sacrifice their own comfort and convenience for the greater good.

Idealists don’t see it that way.

They see masking and distancing as impositions.

In fact, idealists and pragmatists can’t even seem to agree on who’s being the stubborn idealist, and who’s being the flexible pragmatist. This gridlock spills over into just about every political debate now. Everyone thinks the other person is refusing to compromise.

Round and round we go.

The spiritualists vs. the materialists

Spiritualists can come from any religion or worldview. They might be Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist.

Either way, they tend to believe in some sort of grand organizing structure to the universe. If they don’t believe in a single omnipotent being, they believe in a group of guiding forces. They might think the universe itself has a kind of consciousness and free will.

They tend to believe in something of an afterlife.

Most spiritualists I’ve met think there’s some world beyond this one. This tends to explain why they value attitude and mindset above everything else. They believe the universe is benevolent, and it rewards people for putting out positive thoughts or vibrations.

Some spiritualists see the current lives and bodies we inhabit as temporary, and that the temporal world will ultimately give way to a different kind of existence. In some ways, they’re more concerned with maintaining their attitudes and perceptions, because they earnestly believe it’s important to get their soul in the best shape possible.

They avoid anything negative, because that diminishes their soul, and harms their eternal salvation, in whatever form it comes.

Materialists balk at this.

They believe we have one life, and one planet. In their view, there’s no guarantee at all that anything like a soul exists, or that our thoughts and feelings outlive our bodies in any form. Our temporal bodies in this temporal world are all we’ve got, which is why we have to take good care of them, for ourselves and future generations.

Materialists might be atheist or agnostic, or deist, or they might even dispense with these labels altogether.

Materialists are more likely to stress the urgency of climate change, pandemics, and the dissolution of our healthcare system. For them, there’s no reprieve or salvation from this world. There’s no divine or cosmic justice, only what we do in the here and now.

There’s just this one life.

You can see why spiritualists and materialists are also getting into more intense clashes. Spiritualists see materialists as superficial and immature in their knowledge of the universe. Some of them even see materialists as morally corrupt, or faithless. Materialists see spiritualists as negligent, devaluing and trivializing their lives, and treating them as inconsequential. They find spiritualists complacent and even condescending when they promote spiritual solutions to problems.

It’s hard to ask a materialist to be more spiritual.

It’s hard to ask a spiritualist to be less.

Good luck with that one.

Where do we go from here?

These four disagreements filter just about every debate we’re having right now. I’d say it explains why Americans can’t seem to cooperate anymore, and why they’re forming echo chambers.

Maybe now it makes sense why these feuds are breaking out over everything from masks and vaccines to billionaire’s taxes and living wages. It’s almost impossible to get behind a living wage if you’re an idealist individualist who sees it as an argument for socialism. It’s hard not to get angry at optimists if you’re a realist materialist who thinks we’ve only got a couple of years left to reign in our carbon emissions.

I don’t know what the answers are, but I suspect one place to start is to look at the real reasons why we disagree over so much. It’s not just social media. It’s not just pandemic fatigue.

It’s our beliefs and value structures. We’ve always had these differences. We’re entering an era where they’re brought into starker relief. It’s getting harder for these differences to simply coexist like they used to. If nothing else, let’s be honest about our biggest disagreements.

Then we can go from there.